Shortly after same sex marriage was legalized in the Untied States, it had been rumored that an announcement like this was coming. The reasoning at the time was that this would stave off calls for the church to preform same sex marriages in the Temples.
What would be the reaction of the members to a letter like the above? Would this dash the hope of Young Women everywhere that dreamed of a Temple Wedding? Or would it be a relief for the Young Women that now could have the grand wedding of their dreams, having their father walk them down the aisle, little sisters being the flower girl, and non-member aunt attending?
What do you thing about Bishop’s and Stake Presidents no longer performing these weddings? Could you seed item 1 in the letter being implemented, but still letting local leaders perform the weddings, or would it be better for the church to get out the marriage business all together? What about using the building for marriage? Should it be banned, or is this a good way to keep the weeding somewhat church focused?
Your thoughts?
Wheat & Tares 
This letter has to come . By acting as a government agent in a civil marriage, the Church has to abide by all laws applicable to the government. This includes no discrimination against same-sex marriages.
As an attorney, I’m surprised that the Church has not already enacted this policy. A very messy lawsuit surely awaits and, in the end, the Church will have to make the change. One of the cardinal rules of lawyering is to tell your clients to make required changes before the law makes them do so. As soon as the courts are involved, your freedom to act goes down considerably.
From a legal perspective, there is no difference between a bishop, SP, or temple sealer. All are acting in a civil role when conducting a marriage and therefore none will be able to perform civil marriages at some point in the future without subjecting the Church to significant legal liability.
As long as the wedding is a purely religious service, church meetinghouses can be used. The problem is that such a ceremony would create an intermediate step between temple marriages and civil marriages, and that is something I’m not sure that the Church would want with the focus on temple sealing. Some families would then have three ceremonies: a purely civil ceremony at the county clerk’s office, a ceremony conducted by the bishop in a meetinghouse, and a temple ceremony. That seems to be a bit much.
While I agree a letter like this makes sense and probably will happen eventually, it seems the church rarely does anything proactively. The church will likely wait until a legal ruling or overwhelming public opinion forces their hand.
I am not a lawyer, but I think Andrew is incorrect about the legal necessity in the US. Churches will remain free to discriminate and perform the marriages they choose.
There have been people successfully sued for not performing gay marriages. But in that case, the court determined that the “church” performing the ceremony did not have a bona fide belief system because they typically performed marriages for anyone who paid their minimal fee. They were acting as a business for hire and not a church.
The separation of church and state is not so much in danger as to force churches to perform marriages they don’t approve of, In spite of DHO and all his fear rhetoric about protecting freedom of religion.
None of which is to say the church shouldn’t make this change. I think it would be a good change, removing social pressure for people to keep their relatives out of their wedding ceremonies.
So this letter must apply to the United States? Because most other countries in the world do not recognize temple sealings as marriage. The couple must be married civilly first. I lived in the UK, so I attended a few weddings there. Bishops in the UK have to be certified to conduct marriage ceremonies. They can marry the couple. I rather liked it. A marriage there was a day long celebration. The wedding (at the local chapel if you wanted a free place), then photos, then a luncheon, and then the couple would go the the temple to be sealed. They have 24 hours. It used to be 48 for Scotland as the closest temple was in London. In Scotland, some couples would have a ceilidh (dance) the night before the wedding. I liken the actual wedding ceremony to sacrament meeting with hats (women wear hats to weddings). There were speakers and musical numbers. There was also a registrar there. I love the idea of being able to have your entire family involved in a special day and not having to wait outside.
Rockwell,
Two distinctions:
1. Churches are free under the First Amendment to marry whomever they please, and to impose whatever restrictions they see fit, in a religious ceremony. Churches do not need authorization from the government, or even a issued marriage license, to marry a couple religiously. You are correct on this point, but that is not the crucial point here.
2. If the minister is acting as an agent of the state in marrying a couple, he is arguably under different rules. He is acting as a government officer and therefore is subject to all government anti-discrimination laws. The minster’s decision to undertake a civil government function is is the crucial difference.
The legal theory is already established for these potential claims. Kim Davis, the Rowan County, KY, Circuit Clerk who refused to issue any marriage licenses to gay couples, already ran up against this principle and lost convincingly. It would be more complex when coupled with the First Amendment rights of ministers, but the courts have been very clear that combating discrimination is a top priority for government and that people acting in government functions cannot be allowed to discriminate.
The Church would be smart not to litigate this issue and make the small policy change now. We are still suffering from the decision to wait until 1979 to remove the priesthood ban. The last thing that we need is a protracted court case in which the Supreme Court or another court calls us out for illegal discrimination.
This would be great. The non-temple weddings I’ve been to are so much better, more personal, and joyous.
Post-pandemic I wonder if more people will take advantage of the ability to have a civil ceremony and a temple sealing. I know quite a few people who initially were disappointed at postponing a sealing but then ended up loving the civil ceremony. Once people have had a taste of what a wedding could be, we may see a shift.
First of all, I agree with both the substance of #1 and that the Church should be proactive about adopting it. The threat of lawsuits aside, it is in the Church’s interest to take this step. The meanings of marriage as defined by the state and as defined by the Church have diverged enough that the Church should want to deliver a clear message to that effect. Continuing to perform civil marriages in the temple simultaneously with eternal sealings sends a very mixed message.
As for #2, I would lean against it. If freeing people to feed the wedding-industrial complex is the outcome of #2, I would prefer to allow bishops [1], who can put some constraints on what kind of ceremonies they will officiate at, to continue to retain the legal authority and to make Church buildings available. As long as no money changes hands, I don’t think there would be a legal issue. The Church has been discriminating against nonmembers with respect to free wedding services all along and has had no legal problem.
[1] If the state would allow it, extending the authority to perform civil weddings to Relief Society presidents would certainly meet with my approval. Acting as an agent of the state is not a Priesthood function.
I wonder if it is just in the US that a temple wedding counts in law.
I reckon the exclusivity of a temple only ceremony on a wedding day had been a point of unbearable sadness for thousands of couples and their families.
We had every man and their dog to our wedding (invited and uninvited). How difficult culturally is it in the US to have a civil service and party before heading off to the temple?
I believe that Andrew is incorrect as far as the US is concerned. And the COUNTY CLERK who ran up against this was a county clerk. She was not clergy. She was acting only for the government, not any religion. She personally might be religious, but as a government employee, she has to do her job. There is the difference under US law between government employees and clergy. Religions are free to refuse to marry any one they don’t want to marry, but the county clerk has to follow government restriction on discrimination. And yes, clergy are acting for the state in kind of a secondary capacity, but primarily they are acting as a religion with the permission of the state to do one legal action, if the people already have the license. The license allows the government to delegate to clergy. The county clerk still has to issue the license, then permission for the religious authority to do the ceremony is delegated to the religious authority. Sort of like they are given permission by legal authority to act in the name of legal authority, but they are still religious authority. Now, the state could decide to withdraw this special permission given to clergy, but then your taxes would go up because they would have to hire more county clerks.
So all the fear mongering you hear about the church being forced to perform gay weddings is just fear mongering. They are incorrect unless and until US law is changed to require the marriage be performed by the agency issuing the marriage license and not delegated to religious authority. It is different in other countries and the US *could* decide no not delegate to religious authority.
Adoption and other things where a religious organization is being “forced” to not discriminate is different because the laws covering adoption are different. And often the government gives them money to perform adoptions or other services. If they give up the government grant, often they could go on performing the services and still discriminate. But then they could not be government funded.
So, #1 if you are a professional business you can be forced to not discriminate. Or #2 if you are government funded you can be forced not to discriminate. Churches are not for profit businesses (well, some people would debate this, but legally they are not) so they cannot be forced not to discriminate on who they marry, but the almighty dollar rules. They want government funding but not government restrictions.
Now if the church was receiving $20 a pop for doing weddings from the government, then the government would have some say in who they perform services for. But as is, there is nothing to worry about.
I think it is morally wrong that the church can restrict who attends the wedding, but it is still their legal right to discriminate against non members and those who don’t pay tithing. If they can discriminate against who can attend, surely they have the right to discriminate against who is being married in their temples and chapels.
I really would love to see something like this sent out because I’ve been giving a lot of thought to not renewing my temple recommend next summer. This has been percolating for a long time but will come as a surprise to several members of my family and I’m sure it will bring up some awkwardness at weddings that are bound to happen within the next few years. I would still like to see bishops and stake presidents perform weddings if families choose and also building use available. The expense of renting venues can be daunting for some families.
I would welcome such a letter. When I was married nearly 20 years ago, several valued family members and friends on both sides were excluded, both non-members and lapsed/inactive members. At the time, I was willfully ignorant of the pain it was causing. I even felt self-righteous about it. I had been taught my whole life to “get it right the first time” and marry eternally in the temple because civil marriages “don’t count in God’s eyes”. I was dismissive and unsympathetic to family members who were going through personal struggles that kept them from having valid temple recommends. I also believed that for my non-member friends and relatives, getting married in the temple would be a missionary tool; that the event would motivate them to investigate and join the Church (it didn’t, and in some cases just confirmed their perceptions of the weird cultiness of Mormons). I feel like I’m still having to apologize for the hurt caused that day. Some of those relationships were permanently soured.
I’m happy that the one-year waiting period has been abolished. I’ve heard in some quarters of the Church, though, that the option of getting married civilly first is considered the “less righteous path” and marrying in the temple is still the ideal. But separating the civil wedding completely from the sealing is the next logical step, and I think doing so would make the temple sealing that much more special. I so badly wish I had that option.
Sister Stacey, speaking as a Brit in the UK, Bishops do not need to be certified to conduct marriages. That’s why the registrar is there. It’s the building/ location that is licensed for marriages. Each licensed building has its own register, and it’s not uncommon for one or two members of the stake to have qualified themselves as registrars. And intention of the marriage has to be posted at the local registry office in advance. The rules for the Church of England, as the established church, differ.
Very possible.
Leadership will eventually need to concede that the sealing ordinance is more “adoption” than “wedding.” The “wedding” ordinance is closer to the coronation motif expressed in the “second anointing.”
Andrew,
You’re mistaken about the Church being forced to marry gays anywhere, at least under current law. The Church was never forced to marry black people before the TEMPLE and priesthood ban was rescinded. Pre-1978(!) a black sister could not get married/sealed to a white man in the temple and the Church was not forced to change that racist practice, even after the S. CT’s Loving decision in the 1960s. (Loving struck down anti-miscegenation laws which barred whites from marrying blacks.) The same legal logic still applies today.
Claims the church will be forced to marry gay couples is fear mongering, at least based on current law. Who knows what the future holds but it would take a big change in the law to get where Andrew thinks we almost are.
That said, I agree with Andrew the church should move in this direction quickly. It is practical and fair to all involved.